This was an Appeal of the decision of the Review Officer regarding a legal bill submitted by the Respondent for tax planning services provided to the Appellants. The Review Officer reduced the bill by $100,000 but confirmed the remainder of the fees. The Appellants argued that the entire decision should be nullified, and they should be refunded the overpaid fees, claiming errors by the Review Officer. They also sought to have the matter quashed, remitted for rehearing, or set for Trial with full disclosure and expert evidence. The Respondent maintained that the Review Officer made no errors and sought Costs for the Appeal.

The Court acknowledged that the standard of review under Rule 10.26 is deferential, given the Review Officer's specialized knowledge and experience. The Court emphasized that errors must be clear on the record to justify interference. The Review Officer's decision to reduce the final fee by $100,000 was supported by detailed consideration of the complexities involved in the tax planning work, the reasonableness of the fees, and the terms of the retainer agreement.

The Court reviewed the application of Rule 10.17, which allows a Review Officer to take evidence either by Affidavit or orally under oath but does not require it. The Appellants argued they were not afforded procedural fairness because the hearing lacked sworn evidence and cross-examination. The Court found that the Review Officer conducted the hearing fairly, reviewed all submitted materials, and provided all parties an opportunity to present their submissions. The Court determined that the Review Officer’s application of Rule 10.17 was proper and that the hearing was procedurally fair.

Regarding Rule 10.18, the Appellants claimed that the Review Officer exceeded his jurisdiction by interpreting the retainer agreement to include a "bonus fee" over the hourly rates. The Court found that the Review Officer did not interpret the retainer agreement but merely applied its terms to the 2021 engagement, which was governed by the 2017 agreement. The Court concluded that the Review Officer's jurisdiction was not exceeded and his application of Rule 10.18 was appropriate.

The Court concluded that the Review Officer's decision to reduce the fees by $100,000 was reasonable and supported by the evidence. The Court made an additional reduction of
$3,925 + GST for overbilling. The Review Officer's application of the relevant Rules was found to be appropriate and within jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed the remainder of the Review Officer’s decision, awarded Costs on the Appeal to the Respondent, and confirmed that the outstanding fees were subject to interest as stipulated in the retainer agreement.